2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.a.It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.b.It doesn't matter what it is.

5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.a. This to cannot be explained since the first thing still has no cause.

Sure sounds like he is talking about something that had no cause to exist that existed that is responsible for all that there is.

But if I understand his argument it is that whatever caused the universe to exist can not be explained.

Therefore since the first cause can not be explained the universe can not be explained.

If you remember I have stated several times in the last six years that whatever caused the universe to exist would be God.

Whether it was what I call God, or the God particle, or Hawking's instanton, that entity had to be able to produce all the energy required to create and power everything in the universe that we can see and no telling what we can't see.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

But if I understand his argument it is that whatever caused the universe to exist can not be explained.

I'm referring to a different part of his argument that may not be explicitly stated in the OP. Apparently the term universe includes everything that ever existed. I proposed some natural forces outside of what is currently known as the universe, and was told that the definition of universe necessarily included them.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

At the present there is no scientific THEORY of how the universe began to exist. There are several guesses but there is nothing that reaches a consensus.

That means that the existence of the universe can not be explained by science.

The second sentence does not follow from the first.

There are many historical discoveries where there was a time with no scientific THEORY of how a thing worked, there were several guesses but there was nothing that reached a consensus.

Then new information came along, and a scientific theory was developed and a scientific explanation was accepted.

It's quite possible that we simply do not have the information available to us now but at some point in the future we could obtain information that allows for a scientific explanation of the existence of the universe.

It's not valid to say something can never be known just because it's not known right now.

Perhaps it can be explained by science, and we just don't know how to do that right now.

The only way the existence of the universe can be explained so far is by the uncaused cause mentioned in the OP.

I wouldn't call that an explanation.

I would simply say that the existence of the universe is currently unexplained.

I'm referring to a different part of his argument that may not be explicitly stated in the OP. Apparently the term universe includes everything that ever existed. I proposed some natural forces outside of what is currently known as the universe, and was told that the definition of universe necessarily included them.

Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense as none of them could exist until the universe existed. Therefore they could not cause the universe to exist.

The entities he talks about would have to exist outside of the universe to be able to cause the universe to exist.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense

You are incorrect. For purposes of simplicity I stated in my OP that for my purposes "universe = multiverse", indicating anything that ever existed. I go on to state in the OP that God could be the first thing.

But the Bible tells us God created the heavens and earth in the beginning.

Well therein lies the problem. One system is rational the other isn't.

I know the scientific community does not like to give any credence to the Bible

Quite

but at present it is the only book that tells us how it began to exist and why we are here.

There are stacks of books that tell us how the author(s) imagine all this came about. The obvious questions are why yours is any better than all the others and why anyone should take notice of what's written in a book anyway.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

The entities he talks about would have to exist outside of the universe to be able to cause the universe to exist.

Well by his definition, they are not. I know you are looking to have his formulation parallel your own belief, but it does not. Further, by his rules, even if we relaxed that problematic requirement, saying the God created the universe does not count as an explanation.

If you find that useful, please explain how.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Yes, you read me correctly. I was trying to keep the proof simple. I like to think of it as the null set.

So where am I incorrect when I say?

ICANT writes:

Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense as none of them could exist until the universe existed. Therefore they could not cause the universe to exist.

The entities he talks about would have to exist outside of the universe to be able to cause the universe to exist.

So are the entities you mention inside of the universe as you agreed with kbertsche as to being your position which you are arguing in the posts I quoted above.

Or, are they outside the universe as you now claim your statement in the OP that "universe = multiverse"?

Why do you keep stating, "the first thing in the universe cannot be explained" if you allow for things to be outside of the universe.

The standard theory does not allow for anything to be outside of our present universe as it was a self contained unit that was expanding one billionth of a second after T=0.

What existed at T=0? No one knows as the math's don't work there.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

As I have said several times over the past 9 years whatever created the universe and everything in it had to be able to supply enough energy to create the mass in the entire universe.

Whatever entity that could produce that much energy would be God.

We can rule out two branes banging together and producing the universe as they would have to have a vacuum in which to exist and bang together. That would require existence of space in which the vacuum could exist.

Insert multiverse at this point. That would provide a place for the branes to exist and bang together.

But energy cannot be created so we would not exist today if the multiverse hypothesis was correct. As the useable energy would now be all converted to unusable energy. Therefore there would be no energy to create the mass required for our universe. Thus since this would have been going on for an eternity the universe that run out of usable energy would be a dead universe.

The same thing applies to Hawking's instanton.

Existence would have to exist for the universe to be able to exist.Then there would be something for the universe to expand into.

Whatever that entity was that existed prior to our universe would be responsible for creating the universe.

That entity would have to be outside of the universe without a cause to exist, therefore an eternal entity, outside of time as we know it.

You can call that entity anything you want to call it. I prefer to call that entity God.

Science cannot explain the existence of the universe.

God can and does explain the existence of the universe.

God Bless

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

We can rule out two branes banging together and producing the universe as they would have to have a vacuum in which to exist and bang together.

You understand that a vacuum is actually nothing, right? Seriously, you've skipped a step here. The two branes might well have existed in another universe, right? I know that is not allowed in the OPs theory.

But energy cannot be created so we would not exist today if the multiverse hypothesis was correct.

I see a couple of things wrong with that explanation. The prior multiverse might well have been full of energy some of which was used to create the current universe. Secondly, the total net energy in the current universe is at least approximately zero, and may well be zero. In such a case, there is no problem with conservation of energy.

In either event, you seem to be taking some liberties with the question I asked you. Under the OPs given conditions, God is simply part of the universe. My question was regarding why you might find such a situation of interest to you. Apparently the answer is that despite not resembling what your own pet theory, this thread is a sufficient platform for you to once more put forward your 'existence beginning to exist' conundrums without acknowledging any points raised in prior discussions. Nice.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

I could have been more clear in my OP but as I have stated I was trying to keep it simple. If you had participated in the earlier discussion of this thread I'm sure it would be clear to you. Plus, the logic only works when applied to all of existence. Nevertheless, I have edited the OP from "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence".